# US Department of Justice to defend DOMA



## opaltiger (Jun 12, 2009)

Link.

Fuck you, Obama. Fuck you.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Jun 12, 2009)

*Re: US Department of Justive to defend DOMA*

Oh _jesus fucking christ_
I thought we finally had a sensible man at the reins. But no, America is well and truly fucking unsalvageable.
Fuck this 'lgbt history' month bullshit. Meaningless pandering to the masses just to stab us in the back with _this_?
I was enjoying his presidency so-far. Alright, a few crap decisions, at least he hasn't one anything against a large part of his vote-whoops!

Fuck America forever lalala


----------



## Zhorken (Jun 12, 2009)

Well, he does have _something_ of a point, but I'd go the other way with it: marriage should be defined on a federal level and just not be done differently between states.  And should be defined pro-gaily, of course.

EDIT: and he doesn't seem to have addressed the second part of DOMA...?  wtf


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Jun 12, 2009)

Once you compare gay marriage to paedophilia any point you may make is invalidated because you're automatically a lying scumsucker.


----------



## opaltiger (Jun 12, 2009)

The most absurd thing? A while ago Dick Cheney came out in (admittedly very tentative) support of some sort of marriage equality.

Or, no, wait, the absurd thing is that Obama is apparently still all for the legislature overturning DOMA. Because all these lovely arguments would cease to exist as long as it wasn't the judges deciding (can't get accusations of activist judges, after all, never mind that one of the roles of the judiciary is to protect minorities).


----------



## Zhorken (Jun 12, 2009)

opaltiger said:


> Because all these lovely arguments would cease to exist as long as it wasn't the judges deciding (can't get accusations of activist judges, after all, never mind that one of the roles of the judiciary is to protect minorities).


Yeah, people seem to misinterpret neutrality and assume it implies some sort of centrism.  :V


----------



## spaekle (Jun 12, 2009)

While this does make me lose respect for Obama, I'm not really surprised. He's a politician, and this is just something politicians do. 

Abraham Lincoln maintained that the abolition of slavery would be unconstitutional for a lot of his presidency, and, well, look what happened. I have no idea what Obama really wants to happen here, but I'm hoping it's a similar deal. :(


----------



## opaltiger (Jun 12, 2009)

> While this does make me lose respect for Obama, I'm not really surprised. He's a politician, and this is just something politicians do.


Lyndon B. Johnson gave up the South for Democrats, possibly giving up the Presidency for the next twenty years, in order to push for racial equality.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Jun 13, 2009)

Lyndon B. Johnson: Not a Coward.

I mean I was already pretty pissed off at him for passing everything through the Republicans first (hey, you didn't listen to us until we took over, we don't owe you shit. Sadly, most high-profile Democrats don't see it this way) but now he's just edging along further to the right.

I love how Republicans still call him a Socialist. Honey, the day America gets a Socialist President is the day the Vatican elects a gay Pope.


----------



## spaekle (Jun 13, 2009)

It'd be great if Obama were like Lyndon B. Johnson, but apparently he isn't. :(


----------



## goldenquagsire (Jun 13, 2009)

I hope that Mr. Obama notices the irony of a mixed-race person opposing marriage rights for gays. And that he feels ashamed with himself.

I suppose he can still do good, but this is a major cock-up.


----------



## Minish (Jun 13, 2009)

> Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification.


So... basically it's saying that it's okay to discriminate because they don't consider it discrimination?

@_@ *hopes she's just being slow and it's not THIS bad*


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Jun 13, 2009)

Cirrus said:


> So... basically it's saying that it's okay to discriminate because they don't consider it discrimination?


yeah that's basically it


----------



## Exdeath (Jun 13, 2009)

Wow.

I've read through the article, and the most ridiculous thing-to me-is that they consider DOMA constitutional *because it saves money*. I mean, really:



> To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose.


----------



## J.T. (Jun 13, 2009)

> To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose.


Because keeping America the "land of the free" just costs too much money nowadays.

Fucking a.


----------



## Harlequin (Jun 13, 2009)

fucking ridiculous

jesus fucking

I mean

ugh.


----------



## Butterfree (Jun 13, 2009)

...what the hell.

The mind boggles.

...I'm actually having a lot of difficulty believing he actually thinks that. He doesn't seem like the type. Plus all the "white or black, male or female, gay or straight" from his victory speech. Of course, that might have been the publicity stunt.


----------



## Jolty (Jun 13, 2009)

Vladimir Putin's LJ said:


> I love how Republicans still call him a Socialist. Honey, the day America gets a Socialist President is the day the Vatican elects a gay Pope.


hahaha


also, I felt sick reading that
what the fuck


----------



## H-land (Jun 13, 2009)

Spaekle Oddberry said:


> It'd be great if Obama were like Lyndon B. Johnson, but apparently he isn't. :(


What, you want Obama's healthcare reforms to get broken because of the baby boomers, too? Are you saying that American needs more affirmative action in order to fight poverty? Do you want him to start a(nother) highly unpopular war overseas that _only Nixon will have the power to stop_?

Obama may not be making the best choices right now, but Johnson _wasn't that great of a president_. I'd rather say that "It'd be great if Obama were like Abraham Lincoln"- since Lincoln began, but then managed to _end_ a war that really mattered to average Americans, freed (quite nearly all of) the slaves, had a penchant for honesty, supported the construction of the first transcontinental railroad, and though he was assassinated, he managed to get _his face carved into a mountain_ and _printed on money_. Now _that's_ a legacy to aim to beat. Not creating the cabinet position of Department of Transportation.

Really, I don't know what to make of this. Yes, it is good to keep our national expenditures low. Yes, allowing gay couples to marry and treating them as straight couples are treated would cost money. But I'm not sure that really, finances are that good of a reason to deny gay couples marriage rights.

Some part of me is still just hoping that marriage'll somehow soon become politically passé and that civil unions'll be required for any two peoples to become recognized as a couple, though. Leave marriages a religious affair, yaknow?


----------



## spaekle (Jun 13, 2009)

> What, you want Obama's healthcare reforms to get broken because of the baby boomers, too? Are you saying that American needs more affirmative action in order to fight poverty? Do you want him to start a(nother) highly unpopular war overseas that only Nixon will have the power to stop?


I was only saying that it'd be great if he were like LBJ in the sense that he'd care so much about civil rights that he'd possibly throw away his chance at re-election for them. Should have made that clearer. But, yeah, as a president overall he was just kind of meh, and from what I've read of him as a person he was kind of an asshole.


----------



## FluffyGryphon (Jun 13, 2009)

There's a reason I never voted for the guy. Democrats and Republicans are essentially cut from the same mold. They're media-funded, have very similar goals, and always seem to do a complete about-face when it comes to their written/spoken ideals.

I'll never support a majority party and consider anyone that does a complete toolbox.


----------



## Dewgong (Jun 13, 2009)

loopdidoop good job obama


----------



## Bluberry Bat (Jun 13, 2009)

God dammit. And there goes the VERY LAST flicker of hope for the country. Derp de Derp America Derp. Hurr change we need. Goed spel Obama.


----------



## Dinru (Jun 13, 2009)

L'il Dwagie said:


> Derp de Derp America Derp. Hurr change we need. Goed spel Obama.


May I sig this please?

And Obama... *sigh* I'm getting tired of all of this bait-and-switch and false hope. First California, now Obama. And, the whole "w00t 6 down 44 to go!!1! (or was it 4 and 46?)" stuff. 44/46 is too much. It's just... all too _much_. Grr.  Bah. No. I just... no.


----------



## Aura Cobalt (Jun 14, 2009)

Two things.

Are you sure that site was credible? That whole thing was so biased. *Puts up flame sheild*

Why should sexuality and race be treated the same way? The whole "Obama's the first black president and he's being homophobic ZOMG the irony" thing is total bull. At least you can change your sexuality. At least you are _not born one way or the other._ Jeez people. I really don't get your logic. *Reinforces flame sheild*

And no, I don't care that most people on this forum hate me.


----------



## opaltiger (Jun 14, 2009)

If it were fake the government would be denying it all over the place. Sure, I hope it is, but I'm not deluding myself.



> The whole "Obama's the first black president and he's being homophobic ZOMG the irony" thing is total bull.


Obama being elected is one of most obvious signs of the decline in racial discrimination in the US. His defending DOMA is in support of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Unless you are going to tell me the latter is somehow less important, in which case you can just fuck off, then yes, we have a nice case of irony.



> At least you can change your sexuality. At least you are not born one way or the other.


No. No, you cannot. Perhaps you are not born one way or the other, but you cannot change your sexual orientation. Deny, suppress, yes, but not change.

ETA: also I'd like to know how that article is biased, beyond rewording the legal language.


----------



## Bluberry Bat (Jun 14, 2009)

アルセウス七;306235 said:
			
		

> Two things.
> 
> Are you sure that site was credible? That whole thing was so biased. *Puts up flame sheild*
> 
> Why should sexuality and race be treated the same way? The whole "Obama's the first black president and he's being homophobic ZOMG the irony" thing is total bull. At least you can change your sexuality. At least you are _not born one way or the other._ Jeez people. I really don't get your logic. *Reinforces flame sheild*


.........No. No you can not you ignorant fool. Your sexuality is just as ingrained and set as your race and acting any differently is a lie. Noone goes out, weighs all the options, and DECIDES what they're attracted to or turned on by.
What's more, even if they could, why SHOULD they exactly? Imagine you met someone you fall in love with - want to be with forever. But someone tells you it's wrong. I don't think you say "Oops my bad" and go find someone else because they "Fit". That being a crock as it is.
But I suppose I have no need to say much to you given your other comment.



			
				アルセウス七;306235 said:
			
		

> And no, I don't care that most people on this forum hate me.


Durr hurr becuz this gives me a pass to say whatever I want without having to listen to retorts hurp.


----------



## Aura Cobalt (Jun 14, 2009)

But you _can_ change your sexuality. I did. Heterosexuality to asexuality. Now, I don't get "turned on" by anything anymore. (Let me tell you, it sure is nice this way.) Maybe you could definitely say that I have "denied" or "surpressed" my preivious sexual oreintation, but see, once things have undergone as you say "denial" or "suppression" this much, they really have changed. Yet I'm definitely not inable to go back to heterosexuality. If I didn't already have (Christian) morals in place, I feel like I might just as well be homosexual. I guess it all comes down to morallity. And ain't it nice to be able to set your own standards for yourself in a universe that happened by chance?


----------



## spaekle (Jun 14, 2009)

But why should your morals dictate what's right for other people? Shouldn't other people be able to set their own standards in a universe that happened by chance? It's not like gays are infringing on other people's rights just by being gay.

Suppressing your sexuality isn't good no matter what, by the way. Even if it does bring about some kind of change, as you seem to believe.

I like pizza. I didn't choose to like pizza, I just do. Now, if I really wanted to, I could probably stop eating it. I could stop looking at pizza, and I could keep telling myself that I don't like pizza any more. Maybe it would work. Maybe I'd stop wanting pizza when I went out to eat. Maybe I could move on to other food. But the thing is, if ever I tried eating pizza again, I'd probably still like it. 

Telling myself I don't like pizza any more isn't suddenly going to make it taste bad. I've just been denying that I like pizza. It's not like liking pizza is a bad thing to begin with (as long as it's eaten in moderation :V) so why bother trying to change myself? Me eating what I like isn't hurting anyone.

The only difference between this and sexuality is that sexuality tends to be much more important to a person's wellbeing than a preference for one food, and it also tends to be much harder to just suppress.


----------



## Dinru (Jun 14, 2009)

アルセウス七;306235 said:
			
		

> At least you can change your sexuality.


Uh, as some have said, no you can't. However...



			
				アルセウス七;306275 said:
			
		

> But you _can_ change your sexuality. I did.


Okay, lemme say something: Sexuality, though it cannot be actively changed and is ingrained into you, is _fluid_. It's programed into you and you can't change it, but sometimes it evolves over time. For instance, I'm going to use my own experience as an example: I've always, since about age ten, had a strong physical attraction to men (although I've always had emotional attraction to both). It was that way for many years, and no matter what, a woman would not turn me on. However, recently, the physical appeal of men seems to be equal to the appeal of women, that is, very much. I didn't choose that or will it, but something inside of me decided to say, "Ooh, boobies!" and thus I started to stare. Something similar could have happened to you, only more in the "Eww boobies!" direction. You were just lucky that it went to what you want to be.


----------



## Aura Cobalt (Jun 14, 2009)

I think Spaekle Oddberry understands my situation a bit more than Dinru. I chose to  train myself not to be attracted to anyone. (@ Spaekle: you do realize I was being sarcastic about the universe happening by chance thing? I just said in the line before I held Christian views.) So yeah. Training yourself not to eat pizza would be a good idea if it had poison. That's just the case. The truth is, there's just no arguing against homosexuality without the Bible/ religious views. Sex outside of marriage is, however, "poison" to all regardless because of STD's, which I think are natural processes purposefully put in place by the Creator.

Whether we want there to be or not, there is a right or wrong answer, and in the end we will all either be judged or go into oblivion. If I am right, gays are definitely in for it, since the Bible is against it. (the book of Romans goes into pretty harsh detail)


----------



## see ya (Jun 14, 2009)

Fun Bible fact: Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. Paul did. Yahweh did. Jesus didn't. 

By the way, Romans also states that women can never speak in church and must always wear head coverings, and states harsh consequences for doing otherwise. And don't even get me started on Leviticus...

And you're absolutely right. There is no sound argument against homosexuality without religious, faith-based views. So why are you trying to argue it on a forum where most of the members don't even share the same faith as you, making your points completely moot to them?

And LOL about premarital sex being a poison. That's yet another thing that can't be argued without some kind of religious slant. Sex has happened before marriage even existed, and unless you expect everyone to be married the second their sex drive kicks in, it's an entirely unrealistic concept. And STDs being a tool of God just seems kind of underhanded, no? "Hey, I'm gonna give these guys a massive year-round sex drive but give them horrible diseases if they have sex at a time I disapprove of!" It doesn't make much sense, really.


----------



## #1 bro (Jun 14, 2009)

I dunno, has it been proven that you can't change your sexuality? I think sexuality might just be like any other preference... 

Let me share an anecdote. For the first ten years or so of my life I could not _stand_ the taste of chocolate. My dislike was one of the things a lot of people knew about me, a defining trait. As you can imagine, this was very inconvenient, because half of the desserts that the school cafeteria served, I couldn't eat. Then, in fifth grade I decided I had had enough, and so I started to attempt to somehow convince myself to like it. For about two months, I forced myself to eat chocolate whenever I got the chance, hoping that I would see the light and start enjoying it. And guess what? It actually worked! Now, I eat chocolate all the time, and enjoy it. 

So, who says sexuality has to be different? I think that maybe, if I really, really wanted to be gay, I could... you know, start searching the internet for pictures of naked men, and eventually I would start to find them appealing? Then, I could start watching gay porn, and then maybe experiment with inserting things into my ass, until, eventually, I would find those appealing, and then I would start desiring sex with men?

I dunno, is it possible that that would work? I think that if I really put my mind to it, I could turn myself gay, or at least bisexual...

Not that it matters anyway. Gay marriage should be legal even if it was a choice etc.


----------



## Aura Cobalt (Jun 14, 2009)

Fun Bible fact: _According to the Bible_ not all of the teachings/ miracles of Jesus were recorded, for if they could have been, it would fill multiple volumes.

In a society where women had such a different role in society than men such things are sensible as to keep the peace. On the other hand, homosexuality was common among the Pegans and would have been a hard lesson.

Granted, not all of the Old Testament has the same application today. It was written thousands of years ago for a very different original audience. What did you expect?


----------



## Bluberry Bat (Jun 14, 2009)

アルセウス七;306313 said:
			
		

> I think Spaekle Oddberry understands my situation a bit more than Dinru. I chose to  train myself not to be attracted to anyone. (@ Spaekle: you do realize I was being sarcastic about the universe happening by chance thing? I just said in the line before I held Christian views.) So yeah. Training yourself not to eat pizza would be a good idea if it had poison. That's just the case. The truth is, there's just no arguing against homosexuality without the Bible/ religious views. Sex outside of marriage is, however, "poison" to all regardless because of STD's, which I think are natural processes purposefully put in place by the Creator.


Training yourself to act differently than you are is far more unnatural that homosexuality is you realise. That isn't choice, that's force. It's just like being in the closet - you deny it and hide it away but at the end of the day those aren't the feelings you have, it's a veil you put over yourself for protection. Go ahead and direct me to someone who "Trained" themselves to be homosexual, too - I bet there are just CROWDS waiting to be discriminated against. They feel like joining in, and hey - PARADES.

And protip: Heterosexual marriage doesn't cure / prevent STD's and you're all the same likely to catch them in sex with someone you're married with! Sure, if you spend enough time together you should know if your partner is afflicted as such, but it can and does happen that many the straight coupling isn't honest with their partner and infects them. And guess what, gay couples have the same likely hood to catch on during a relationship to things like that.




			
				アルセウス七;306313 said:
			
		

> Wheather we want there to be or not, there is a right or wrong answer, and in the end we will all either be judged or go into oblivion. If I am right, gays are definitely in for it, since the Bible is against it. (the book of Romans goes into pretty harsh detail)


Oh hey! Pascals wager~ I've got 2,500 Karma on Buddhism.
You associate with the largest religion on the planet - what makes that right exactly? You're still a speck on this little blue marble and a mere nothing among the universe. Huh, good luck. 
But apparently that gives you the right to discriminate against others? Imagine for a second Christianity was the SMALLEST religion on the planet? You wouldn't be so cloaked to say those things would you? Christianity forcibly converted through the ages in order to gain that size. That's a great moral high ground huh?


----------



## Aura Cobalt (Jun 14, 2009)

Zeta Reticuli said:


> I dunno, has it been proven that you can't change your sexuality? I think sexuality might just be like any other preference...
> 
> Let me share an anecdote. For the first ten years or so of my life I could not _stand_ the taste of chocolate. My dislike was one of the things a lot of people knew about me, a defining trait. As you can imagine, this was very inconvenient, because half of the desserts that the school cafeteria served, I couldn't eat. Then, in fifth grade I decided I had had enough, and so I started to attempt to somehow convince myself to like it. For about two months, I forced myself to eat chocolate whenever I got the chance, hoping that I would see the light and start enjoying it. And guess what? It actually worked! Now, I eat chocolate all the time, and enjoy it.
> 
> ...


I'm really starting to get creeped out of this discussion. Do you're all's sexualities rage _this much_? When I was heterosexual I never even let myself lust. Lusting is way different than occasionally thinking about sex and... knowing it... erm... would be enjoyable?


----------



## see ya (Jun 14, 2009)

アルセウス七;306324 said:
			
		

> Fun Bible fact: _According to the Bible_ not all of the teachings/ miracles of Jesus were recorded, for if they could have been, it would fill multiple volumes.
> 
> In a society where women had such a different role in society than men such things are sensible as to keep the peace. On the other hand, homosexuality was common among the Pegans and would have been a hard lesson.
> 
> Granted, not all of the Old Testament has the same application today. It was written thousands of years ago for a very different original audience. What did you expect?


1. Well, we don't know if he did or not. Still, didn't he primarily preach about being non-judgmental, humble, and generally Christ-like? Yeah, I think that pretty much overrides anything he might have said about homosexuality. After all, if you're right, they'll be judged anyway later, right? So it's none of your business. Turn the other cheek and smile. 

2. I fail to see how that makes my point any less valid. because...

3. Guess what? The New Testament was ALSO written thousands of years ago and was ALSO directed at a very different audience! We've come a long way since bible times, now that things like slavery, stonings and such are no longer commonplace in the modern world. So why should we hold the same standards now as people did thousands of years ago? Isn't that kind of backwards?



> I'm really starting to get creeped out of this discussion. Do you're all's sexualities rage this much? When I was heterosexual I never even let myself lust. Lusting is way different than occasionally thinking about sex and... knowing it... erm... would be enjoyable?


I don't really see how what he said was "raging sexuality". It was just an example. 

Also, yes. It's called "being a human that isn't asexual." :D


----------



## goldenquagsire (Jun 14, 2009)

@Zeta Reticuli: I suppose you're probably right. People can change pretty much anything about themselves, if forced to. I really don't think that should be taken into account, though - just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.



> I'm really starting to get creeped out of this discussion. Do you're all's sexualities rage this much? When I was heterosexual I never even let myself lust. Lusting is way different than occasionally thinking about sex and... knowing it... erm... would be enjoyable?


Man, just go out and lust! Try it for once. You'll see that the universe won't collapse, and you might just enjoy yourself. 

Ho hum, another gay marriage bitchfest. Usual arguments being levied against, and swiftly destroyed. One poor guy gets crushed under the weight of progressive liberal thinking and realises that he chose the wrong forum to preach on. I think I preferred the old Communism debates with Celestial Blade.


----------



## ultraviolet (Jun 14, 2009)

> I'm really starting to get creeped out of this discussion. Do you're all's sexualities rage this much? When I was heterosexual I never even let myself lust. Lusting is way different than occasionally thinking about sex and... knowing it... erm... would be enjoyable?


It varies completely between individuals. Lusting is, actually, thinking about sex, pretty much. Getting 'turned on' or thinking 'sexy' thoughts. A _completely natural_ thing. Letting yourself think about sex isn't going to harm you and you won't go to hell for it because _everyone _does it. Anyone who tells you otherwise is_ full of shit_. Yes, everyone. Them too. And them. _Everyone_. 



> Sex outside of marriage is, however, "poison" to all regardless because of STD's, which I think are natural processes purposefully put in place by the Creator.


You do realise that many, many people who are married have STDs. There are many, many people who got STDs from marital sex. There are many, many people who didn't get STDs from sex outside of marriage (example: myself). 
Do you even know how STDs work or what they are? Because the impression I'm getting is that you think they're voodoo curses or something. 

You know what? Sex isn't such a big magical fuss that everyone makes it out to be. Genitals rub against other people, tadaa, sex. If you don't like homosexuals, bisexuals or whatnot _then don't be one_. Leave us alone. We don't really care about what you think about us, to be honest. 
Stop complaining about the way we have sex. It's not as if it has anything to do with you or anything. o.O



> Fun Bible fact: According to the Bible not all of the teachings/ miracles of Jesus were recorded, for if they could have been, it would fill multiple volumes.


So... if I said that Jesus said 'the first rule of Christianity is that you don't talk about Christianity' then you couldn't disprove me, right?


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Jun 14, 2009)

No one in their right mind would choose to be gay. No one in their right mind would choose to deviate at least a little from normal society standards. Because, let's face it: there is no goddamn reason to. If you're heterosexual, you're pretty much in the safe zone, if you're homosexual, congrats! Your chances of getting discriminated against, beaten up, denied basic human rights and getting killed just increased tenfold! Come up and collect your prize, you lucky little faggots!
And look at what you yourself said: you trained yourself not to be attracted to women: bravo, you're still heterosexual, just pretending to be asexual for some weird reason. It's like those horribleex-gay camps, the men are still camp as a row of tents but they suppress their sexuality and ultimately either revert to their natural ways, live unhappily married lives or kill themselves.

And bla bla bla Bible drivel. Are you going to tell me you also advocate stoning one's wife or selling one's daughter into slavery? Do you not touch women during their period of 'uncleanliness' (how would you do this, ask all women if they have their period? Frightfully rude) and when you find out you did do you wash all your clothes and bathe? Do you kill anyone who work on Sabbath? No? Then stop picking and choosing and realize that hey, maybe (I dunno man) society evolved in 2000 years. And weren't we supposed to disregard everything the old testament said after Jesus showed up? Otherwise we might as well all be Jews.
Oh wait Rabbis can marry, be women and even be gay in Reform and Conservative Judaism nevermind.

And sorry, but God sounds really petty. I always think the tower of Babel is a perfect example: the humans decide to build a town, and they think 'hey, let's build the biggest tower ever guys! We can do this because we all speak the same language!' which is pretty dandy. But God looks at these people and thinks 'hmmm they're using teamwork to try and make themselves look powerful! Alright, party's over, everyone speaks a different language and gets sent to different parts of the world.'
What the fuck. What kind of dad wouldn't want his kids to evolve and be independant? In nearly every chapter of the old testament he needs to have people constantly telling him how awesome he is and if they do the slightest thing he smites them. Sounds insecure, vindictive and just plain mean.



> Wheather we want there to be or not, there is a right or wrong answer, and in the end we will all either be judged or go into oblivion. If I am right, gays are definitely in for it, since the Bible is against it.


Haha, yeah, those wacky gays are in for it now! Oh man, getting tortured forever because of something they can't help, what a hoot! I am so glad to live in a country where most people believe in a loving God such as this 'v'



			
				アルセウス七;306324 said:
			
		

> Fun Bible fact: _According to the Bible_ not all of the teachings/ miracles of Jesus were recorded, for if they could have been, it would fill multiple volumes.


Well, why didn't they make these multiple volumes? Sounds like laziness to me. Or a shitty excuse. Either way, not good!



> Granted, not all of the Old Testament has the same application today. It was written thousands of years ago for a very different original audience. What did you expect?


If you know this, why do you argue for it? I mean really.

And sorry to break your world but get this: lust is normal and not something to get creeped out about unless you're getting hit on by a weirdo omg


----------



## Minish (Jun 14, 2009)

How did this guy survive so long on TCoD without being noticed as an ignorant ass @_@ Sure kept that one to yourself.

I can't be bothered to put my own argument down because it's pretty much the same as what everybody else said and would be significantly less impressive, so I'm just going to ask why the _hell_ did you 'train' yourself to 'become' asexual? You wanted to become asexual because you think lust is a bad thing? Why didn't you just, you know, decide not to act on lust? What are you meaning when you say lust is bad, like, one-night stands or something? Raping random women on the street?

If you're talking about lust being sex drive, uh that's not exactly a bad thing? By the Japanese username and complete ignorance I'm going to assume you're probably not exactly far into adulthood, so are you just some teenager who decided to act elitist? You can't become asexual, you're born asexual. Celibate is not the same thing as asexual. If you've found people sexually attractive before, how can you be asexual? And you're only talking about acting on lust, wtf I'm a lesbian and I've never even gone out with a girl, I still know I find them attractive. And thinking someone attractive is not the same as 'you know what, I'm going to go fuck that girl by letting my lust take control!'

Forgive the babbling but I seriously do not get this whatsoever, at least you can tell where Christians get all their material from. :/


----------



## Zhorken (Jun 14, 2009)

Vladimir Putin's LJ said:


> No one in their right mind would choose to be gay. No one in their right mind would choose to deviate at least a little from normal society standards. Because, let's face it: there is no goddamn reason to.


Er, yes there is.  It's fucking fun!  Why are you so convinced that the world hates weird people instead of just finding them weird but okay once they get to know them?


EDIT: also Spaekle that is the greatest post.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Jun 14, 2009)

Zhorken said:


> Why are you so convinced that the world hates weird people instead of just finding them weird but okay once they get to know them?


Because they do? I mean I usually live in fairy lala land myself but believing that most people don't either hate or are frightened of anyone who deviates from the social norm is ludicrous.


----------



## Zhorken (Jun 14, 2009)

Where the hell are you?  o.O  I talk to a hell of a lot of people and they're mostly cool if you come off as friendly.

EDIT: 'Camp' doesn't come off as friendly ftr.  Think of the equivalent heterosexual man-men and snippy women.  That's how obnoxious campness is.  It comes off as exclusive, as "our sexuality sets us apart" (and even then, the people who get violent over it are generally few.)


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Jun 14, 2009)

If we face pure facts then I am sorry to say that yes, gay people do get discriminated against a ton more than your average heterosexual, even if they're very friendly.
Because boys who like to kiss boys should get stoned to death. (Lev 18:22)

Different people are there either for entertainment (mockery) or to get insulted for no reason. The common person just doesn't like difference or change.


----------



## Minish (Jun 14, 2009)

Whoa, friendliness is definitely no get out of jail free card.

And especially not for gay people, I've noticed. In my school people are 'outraged' if I try and act friendly to them because I'm not supposed to be friendly, apparently because I'm gay.

Anyone deviating from the social norm is discriminated against somehow. :/


----------



## Zhorken (Jun 14, 2009)

Of course, the world does have lots of problems there, and, yes, you're more likely to face discrimination if people have something to go by.  And some places are worse than others; things are certainly better than average here.  All the same, there's still a lot of room to be different and still generally be accepted.  People make fun of my hair, but most people think it's nice; people make fun of my geeky shirts, but most people think they're cool; people think it's weird when I mention I like boys, but most people are fine with it.  I do mention it in groups that will have some people who don't like these things, and I've never had more than mean words back.

I'm not an idiot.  We can't just sit and ago "oh the world is already okay" because it's not, not by far.  But it's not nearly so bad that you'd have to be out of your mind to want to be anything but normal.

I'm ignoring places that are way fucked up in general, of course (which America isn't.)


----------



## Butterfree (Jun 14, 2009)

It is likely that sexuality can in fact change. :/ As abhorrent as the idea of "curing" gay people is, there are "ex-gays" who genuinely did change and are in happy heterosexual marriages, and it's sort of silly how everybody jumps on them and screams they must be repressed and in denial without a shred of proof.

The point ought to be, _why should they need to change?_ It is obviously not a simple choice to be made at one's convenience, and why should they be made to go through the trouble of trying to be heterosexual (which only a small percentage of them could ever actually do)? It's kind of like left-handed kids being forced to write with their right hand. Handedness can actually change and you can become more comfortable with your originally nondominant hand, but _why?_ Why can't left-handed people just be left-handed?

The only real reason people pull out is the Bible, and the religious beliefs of one person simply should not be able to affect another person. "Saving money"? It would save money for the government to, say, ban cars and force everybody to use public transports instead, but that obviously does not make it remotely right to actually do it. Homosexuals should have a right to marry the person they love just like everybody else, even if disallowing it would save money. STDs? People get STDs from unsafe heterosexual sex too; I do not see how banning gay marriage should encourage people to use condoms.


----------



## Dinru (Jun 14, 2009)

Butterfree said:


> It is likely that sexuality can in fact change. :/ As abhorrent as the idea of "curing" gay people is, there are "ex-gays" who genuinely did change and are in happy heterosexual marriages, and it's sort of silly how everybody jumps on them and screams they must be repressed and in denial without a shred of proof.
> 
> The point ought to be, _why should they need to change?_


My point exactly, along with the rest of your post. (Although a lot of them may have been bisexual to begin with, but not aware of it due to how low bisexual visibility is and has been over time).



			
				アルセウス七;306329 said:
			
		

> I'm really starting to get creeped out of this discussion. Do you're all's sexualities rage _this much_?


Oh, silly Arusesune*, I'm not letting my sexuality rage, althoug my sexuality plays a part as to why I'm enraged. I'm simply standing up for what I beleive in, which is that America should be a place where all are equal, no matter what~ That's what the country was founded on, equality. Sure, freedom of _religion_ may have been what the pilgrims came for, but really, methinks the founding fathers are turning over in their graves right now. But that's just me~

*I don't know how to type katakana, and I'm sorry if I romanized that incorrectly. And I didn't recognize the last one.


----------



## opaltiger (Jun 14, 2009)

> It is likely that sexuality can in fact change. :/ As abhorrent as the idea of "curing" gay people is, there are "ex-gays" who genuinely did change and are in happy heterosexual marriages, and it's sort of silly how everybody jumps on them and screams they must be repressed and in denial without a shred of proof.


I think the problem is more people having too narrow an interpretation of sexuality.


----------



## Dewgong (Jun 15, 2009)

i'm just going to say what everyone else has said. no need to type everything out when it's already been told. 

also, aruseusu7 (idk i think it's right), would you stop thinking that using the bible is an okay argument? it doesn't work and nobody cares and it makes you look like you can't back up your information or opinions very well. :/



Dinru said:


> Arusesune*
> 
> *I don't know how to type katakana, and I'm sorry if I romanized that incorrectly. And I didn't recognize the last one.


Aruseusu nana (7). Last is the kanji for 7 (七).


----------



## Crazy Linoone (Jun 15, 2009)

アルセウス七;306235 said:
			
		

> Why should sexuality and race be treated the same way? The whole "Obama's the first black president and he's being homophobic ZOMG the irony" thing is total bull. At least you can change your sexuality. At least you are _not born one way or the other._ Jeez people. I really don't get your logic. *Reinforces flame sheild*


Two words: Michael Jackson

And I don't get your logic either.


----------



## Aura Cobalt (Jun 15, 2009)

Dewgong said:


> Would you stop thinking that using the bible is an okay argument? it doesn't work and nobody cares and it makes you look like you can't back up your information or opinions very well. :/


-_-;

My original argument was simply that one's sexual orientation _could_ be changed. People were trying to say that I was wrong and so I shared about how I had in my own life. And that seemed so wierd to everyone, and so I told my reason _why_ I am the way I am: my religious beliefs. Which just turned into more and more of a religious debate with me _defending_ my views, not trying to force them on other people.

For the record, I find it interesting how here Christians are more looked down upon and in a way descriminated against than homosexuals. Or for that matter any other group of people. (_"Oh, but don't you see? We only attack Christians when they run their mouths and share their views with people. If you'd just shut up about what you believe maybe we wouldn't treat you this way."_)

Maybe that was a bit much. I know some of you are being a bit nicer than others, but if you're not in the majority group, it's _impossible_ to accomplish anything on a forum of this size. Once two or three people stop replying to what I say, five have joined in. Just incase anyone wondered why I stopped posting replies to everything.


----------



## goldenquagsire (Jun 15, 2009)

> For the record, I find it interesting how here Christians are more looked down upon and in a way descriminated against than homosexuals. Or for that matter any other group of people.


lolwut

you're discriminating against homosexuals. we're not discriminating against christians. we're discriminating against hypocritical bigots. the two are different things.



> People were trying to say that I was wrong and so I shared about how I had in my own life. And that seemed so wierd to everyone, and so I told my reason why I am the way I am: my religious beliefs.


but your beliefs are discriminating and offensive.

you're still saying "i don't like gays because of x". and people think that's a pretty assholish view, regardless of why you hold it. and so we're arguing with you.

you're also saying blatant rubbish such as "STDs are a punishment for sex outside of marriage", so we're just correcting you. :)



> I know some of you are being a bit nicer than others, but if you're not in the majority group, it's impossible to accomplish anything on a forum of this size.


oh, and what did you want to accomplish?

you didn't seriously think you'd get all of TCoD to convert, did you? xD


----------



## Jetx (Jun 15, 2009)

Your "original argument" was nowhere as innocent as you are implying it was. You clearly think there is significantly less wrong with discrimination based on sexual orientation than there is with discrimination based on race.

It doesn't matter whether or not you wasted your time forcing yourself to change your sexual orientation, it is unfair to expect other people to follow on in your example - especially since you do not seem to grasp that it was clearly a lot easier for you than it would be for others, just think of the people who have fallen in love, for example.

You are _one person_, and you don't represent humanity. If anything you should have realised from this experience that it is not normal to just be able to easily "ditch" your sexuality, so it is pointless to act like everybody could.

People like you don't see things like this objectively enough. People without religious beliefs aren't going to do anything based on you claiming that your beliefs would suggest that they will be cast into "oblivion" for some reason - surely you can see how preposterous that sounds in the eyes of somebody who does not see any truth in it? Keep your backwards way of thinking to yourself, you'll get nothing out of announcing it.


----------



## J.T. (Jun 15, 2009)

アルセウス七;306924 said:
			
		

> My original argument was simply that one's sexual orientation _could_ be changed.


Why should anyone have to to avoid persecution? You're suggesting that rather than stopping discrimination against gays, gays should stop being gay. How in the hell is that fair?



			
				アルセウス七;306924 said:
			
		

> For the record, I find it interesting how here Christians are more looked down upon and in a way descriminated against than homosexuals. Or for that matter any other group of people.


You are not being discriminated against for being Christian. You are being looked down upon for being a bigot and trying to take away the rights of 10% of the population. Big difference.



			
				アルセウス七;306924 said:
			
		

> (_"Oh, but don't you see? We only attack Christians when they run their mouths and share their views with people. If you'd just *stop being a bigot* maybe we wouldn't treat you this way."_)


Fixed.



			
				アルセウス七;306924 said:
			
		

> if you're not in the majority group, it's _impossible_ to accomplish anything on a forum of this size.


Not if you have half-decent points. Most of us are pretty open-minded.


----------



## Zuu (Jun 15, 2009)

oh I just pretty much hate christians in general, so

difference is, gays haven't done anything to anyone


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Jun 15, 2009)




----------



## Aura Cobalt (Jun 16, 2009)

goldenquagsire said:


> oh, and what did you want to accomplish?
> 
> you didn't seriously think you'd get all of TCoD to convert, did you? xD


I'd be just as astonished if that happened as if the universe blew up as you read this sentence. What I was talking about was at least reaching a conclusion with _someone_ before they or I dropped out of the discussion or more people came in and disallowed me to concentrate my efforts.



Jetx said:


> Your "original argument" was nowhere as innocent as you are implying it was. You clearly think there is significantly less wrong with discrimination based on sexual orientation than there is with discrimination based on race.


I've said already that one you are born with and one you are not. Race does not (generally speaking) have any affect on your actions. And as I've said, _you can change your sexuality._



Jetx said:


> It doesn't matter whether or not you wasted your time forcing yourself to change your sexual orientation, it is unfair to expect other people to follow on in your example - especially since you do not seem to grasp that it was clearly a lot easier for you than it would be for others, just think of the people who have fallen in love, for example.


I know it is a lot harder for some people to switch than others. It is harder for someone to stop smoking who has a bunch of friends that smoke, too, but it can still be done.

I agree that it would be pointless to switch sexuality if you didn't have any religious belief that convicted you otherwise. That's why you can't expect anyone to change without the Bible. I've said that.



Dezzuu said:


> difference is, gays haven't done anything to anyone


Are you blaming me for all the crap some Christians have pulled out in the past?



Vladimir Putin's LJ said:


>


Nice graph of TCoD. I'd like to see one of all the people who've posted in this thread.


----------



## Dewgong (Jun 16, 2009)

goldenquagsire said:
			
		

> blatant rubbish such as "STDs are a punishment for sex outside of marriage"


i hate it when people say that just because you're married and have sex it's like some magical guard against stds. it's completely and equally as likely to get an std by having sex with your spouse than your girl/boyfriend. in other words, yeah, that was indeed blatant rubbish.




			
				アルセウス七 said:
			
		

> _you can change your sexuality_


well that's a dumb idea.



			
				アルセウス七 said:
			
		

> I find it interesting how here Christians are more looked down upon and in a way descriminated against than homosexuals.


hahahaha. no. not really. you're the one, and most other christians, are the ones who are discriminating against homosexuals. you're trying and are taking the rights away from, as someone already said, 10%(+) of the population. you guys aren't really that discriminated against. 



			
				アルセウス七 said:
			
		

> "Oh, but don't you see? We only attack Christians when they run their mouths and share their views with people. If you'd just shut up about what you believe maybe we wouldn't treat you this way."


funny i was about to say that. and we don't _attack_ christians either.



			
				アルセウス七 said:
			
		

> majority group


i giggled.



			
				アルセウス七 said:
			
		

> Nice graph of TCoD. I'd like to see one of all the people who've posted in this thread.


was that a graph of tcod or was that a graph of like... the population? i don't really know. i think it was more than tcod though.


----------



## Mhaladie (Jun 16, 2009)

I actually agree with a lot of the points you make. What I disagree with is the _base_ of your argument. As people have said, you seem to think that it is less wrong to discriminate against someone based on race than on sexual orientation, because as we've established, there is _some _amount of choice involved in sexual orientation, whereas race is something you're born with. 



			
				アルセウス七;307046 said:
			
		

> I've said already that one you are born with and one you are not. Race does not (generally speaking) have any affect on your actions. And as I've said, _you can change your sexuality._
> 
> I know it is a lot harder for some people to switch than others. It is harder for someone to stop smoking who has a bunch of friends that smoke, too, but it can still be done.


As long as the choice being made isn't inherently wrong, I think maybe it's just as bad to discriminate against someone because of a choice they are making than something they are born with. Because it'd be entirely horrible if people were made to switch sexual orientations so they weren't discriminated against... doesn't that make it just as bad as discriminating based on race? I think maybe a better analogy would be discriminating based on where someone lives. Yes, it's a choice, but it shouldn't affect anything just because of that. People shouldn't have to change it, and so shouldn't be discriminated against for it. 

And I mean, especially if you're talking about a "choice" like sexual orientation, where it really isn't completely and entirely their choice. I guess it'd also be kind of like people said with the food analogy, discriminating against someone because they like a certain kind of food, or... something. I'm not sure if I'm really getting my point across here, but that's why I'm disagreeing with you. Not because you're Christian. That has nothing to do with it.


----------



## #1 bro (Jun 16, 2009)

religion is 100% a choice, however (rightfully) no one is allowed to discriminate against that


----------



## Zuu (Jun 16, 2009)

アルセウス七;307046 said:
			
		

> Are you blaming me for all the crap some most Christians have pulled out in the past present


you're part of the problem, bub. bigotry and discrimination aren't exactly the crusades or the dark ages, but it's still awful.


----------



## FluffyGryphon (Jun 16, 2009)

アルセウス七;306275 said:
			
		

> But you _can_ change your sexuality. I did. Heterosexuality to asexuality. Now, I don't get "turned on" by anything anymore. (Let me tell you, it sure is nice this way.)


Does that mean you're not going to breed now? :>


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Jun 16, 2009)

Dewgong said:


> was that a graph of tcod or was that a graph of like... the population? i don't really know. i think it was more than tcod though.


world graph iirc

and i guess those gay men in lebanon are feeling pretty stupid they didn't magically choose to be straight! stupid faggots, preferring hanging to the christian solution.
feh.
FEH


----------



## opaltiger (Jun 16, 2009)

> world graph iirc


Er, no. Where is Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism? Probably just the US.


----------



## Tarvos (Jun 16, 2009)

probably irrelevant to the _point they were trying to make_


----------



## Jetx (Jun 16, 2009)

アルセウス七;307046 said:
			
		

> I know it is a lot harder for some people to switch than others. It is harder for someone to stop smoking who has a bunch of friends that smoke, too, but it can still be done.
> 
> I agree that it would be pointless to switch sexuality if you didn't have any religious belief that convicted you otherwise. That's why you can't expect anyone to change without the Bible. I've said that.


Then what would you consider the solution to this "problem"? The number of religious people is going to be gradually decreasing for many years, I reckon, and the number of religious people against homosexuality will decrease even faster. You're going to have to learn to suck it up and deal with it - everybody who doesn't like it is - because there's not much you can do about it now and there definitely won't be in the future.

And I don't think it's fair to compare homosexuals to people with smoking addictions. Yeah, you can change your sexuality, but if, for example, a married homosexual found religion and realised they had to give up their partner for it or something, that would just be sad. Would that be what God wants them to do?



FluffyGryphon said:


> Does that mean you're not going to breed now? :>


Hahaha xD


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Jun 16, 2009)

And smoking is very harmful while homosexuality
like
isn't.
Unless you live in the middle east or the southern United States.


----------



## Jetx (Jun 16, 2009)

Homosexuality can be harmful too; I mean, homosexuality evokes the wrath of God and gets you thrown into Hell for all eternity and whatnot.
We know this because

Well, we just _know_ it


----------



## BCM (Jun 17, 2009)

> there is some amount of choice involved in sexual orientation


I don't see how there's any choice involved in it. Don't you think all the homosexuals that commited suicide have tried quite hard to change their orientation and couldn't?

I don't think anyone is 100% straight/gay, and as people grow older (especially as teenagers) they begin to experiment and find what they think they really are. Regarding ex-gays, I think they were never completely gay or just suppressed their feelings enough to where they were "numbed" to weak sexual thoughts about the same sex and were somewhat bisexual and thought that their attraction to the opposite sex was actually them becoming straight. If they saw, say, hardcore gay porn, they would most likely be attracted to it.

I don't think アルセウス七 is completely asexual, he could probably find a girl/guy attractive if he looked hard enough. Since (I'm assuming) he's a teenager, his sexuality is changing, but naturally, not by 'forcing' it to, I think he's partially trying to suppress heterosexual feelings and partially growing up (so his sexuality is changing naturally). He might not be heterosexual enough (or doesn't have a strong enough libido) to find most girls/guys attractive and thinks that his studying of christianity/the bible and suppression of his libido is actually changing his sexual orientation.
I don't mean to sound insulting to アルセウス七 or anything; this is just what I think about it, and I think it  makes sense.


----------



## octobr (Jun 17, 2009)

dear japanobabble please stop being christian while you're being stupid it makes me look even worse thanks

*~christian and queer~* whoop whoop 


IN OTHER NEWS has there been any update on the whole DOMA issue? You know, the thing the thread is about


----------



## Harlequin (Jun 17, 2009)

I did not in any way choose to be homosexual. It just happened, and it's not something I can change. It is what it is - I'm just not attracted to women. Why does this make me a terrible person?


----------



## J.T. (Jun 17, 2009)

アルセウス七;307046 said:
			
		

> I've said already that one you are born with and one you are not. Race does not (generally speaking) have any affect on your actions.


Retarded point. People of a different race don't do much differently than you. People of a different sexuality... don't do much differently than you. The one action they do differently doesn't affect you, or anyone else, in any way whatsoever, except maybe making you go "ick". But then again, that's hardly a reason to try to reduce them to subhuman in the eyes of the government, like you have.



			
				アルセウス七;307046 said:
			
		

> And as I've said, _you can change your sexuality._


Wow, someone go tell all those gays being killed by the government in Islamic countries! And those people who were kicked out of their homes by their parents, beaten, mugged, etc.! Apparently it's _that easy_ to stop it!

Oh, wait.



			
				アルセウス七;307046 said:
			
		

> I know it is a lot harder for some people to switch than others. It is harder for someone to stop smoking who has a bunch of friends that smoke, too, but it can still be done.


Difference: Gays don't hurt anyone, or themselves. I mean they _can_, but not by simply _being_ gay.



			
				アルセウス七;307046 said:
			
		

> I agree that it would be pointless to switch sexuality if you didn't have any religious belief that convicted you otherwise. That's why you can't expect anyone to change without the Bible. I've said that.


Great. So why bother? The gays who aren't religious don't give two shits. The gays who are, don't give two shits either. Trying to get them to change is retarded.

And I still can't see how you could possibly say it's more fair to force gays to change who they are than it is to just stop discriminating against them.



			
				アルセウス七;307046 said:
			
		

> Are you blaming me for all the crap some Christians have pulled out in the past?


No, we're blaming Christians for the crap Christians have pulled out in the past. Also what they're doing right now. Like trying to take away the rights of a minority and make them subhuman... oh! wait! _you're_ doing that!



			
				アルセウス七;307046 said:
			
		

> Nice graph of TCoD. I'd like to see one of all the people who've posted in this thread.


iirc that's a graph of religion in the U.S. Or the world. Or something.

It's also remarkably true. I have seen so many Christians scream persecution when their rights to persecute others are taken away.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Jun 23, 2009)

lol.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/obama-invites-gay-rights-advocates-to-white-house/


> *Obama Invites Gay Rights Advocates to White House*
> By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
> 
> As advocates for gays and lesbians intensify their criticism of the White House, President Obama has invited some of their leaders to an East Room reception next Monday to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, the 1969 Greenwich Village demonstrations that gave birth to the modern gay rights movement.
> ...


i hate how obama keeps trying to please both the left and the right. stop being centrist obama. stop trying to please the republicans.

Also check out this smug shit the mormons put out when Prop 8 was upheld:


> Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is welcome. The issue the court decided was whether California citizens validly exercised their right to amend their own constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The court has overwhelmingly affirmed their action.
> 
> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society. These implications range from what our children are taught in schools to individual and collective freedom of religious expression and practice.
> 
> Accordingly, the Church stands firmly for what it believes is right for the health and well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, it once again affirms that all of us are children of God, and all deserve to be treated with respect. The Church believes that serious discussion of these issues is not helped when extreme elements on both sides of the debate demonize the other.





> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and


----------



## EvilCrazyMonkey (Jun 30, 2009)

Vladimir Putin's LJ said:


> I love how Republicans still call him a Socialist. Honey, the day America gets a Socialist President is the day the Vatican elects a gay Pope.


Okay, so the right is like: "DAMN SOCIALIST WE WANT OUR CAPITALISM!"
My family is hardxcore republican. Can someone here explain to me what socialism is and how Obama is not socialist? I'm at a loss.


----------



## Adriane (Sep 16, 2009)

EvilCrazyMonkey said:


> Okay, so the right is like: "DAMN SOCIALIST WE WANT OUR CAPITALISM!"
> *My family is hardxcore republican.* Can someone here explain to me what socialism is and how Obama is not socialist? I'm at a loss.


So what are you?


----------



## opaltiger (Sep 16, 2009)

I know this was in June, but it's an interesting question, and I think some light should be cast.

Let's explain this in terms of the current healthcare debate.

A socialist approach would be to nationalise medicine entirely (eg. NHS). This would mean that hospitals are funded by the government, doctors are government employees, and medicine and medical procedures are (in some cases) paid for by the government. This is known as publicly-funded health care, and is paid for mostly by taxes.

Now let's look at what Obama wants to do and what is currently in place in the US. Health insurance in the US is obtained through one of many insurance companies; often this happens through an employer, who has a deal with the insurance companies to cover the employer's employees, but individual insurance plans can also be purchased. Insurance companies are free to set their own prices and to deny patients based on their own reasons (eg pre-existing conditions). Hospitals are also privately run.

What Obama wants to do (or at least, what the liberals in Congress want to do) is introduce a government-run plan that would compete with insurance companies by offering health-care plans to those that do not qualify through their employers or for other reasons, and those who cannot afford it. This would also require everyone to have some sort of a health-care plan (universal health-care). In theory, this would cause real competition and insurance companies would have to adjust their own prices and policies.

So we see the difference. The socialist approach is to nationalise medicine and do away with private insurance companies entirely; Obama's approach is merely to create government run and regulated competition in order to regulate the prices and policies of the private insurance companies - a practice which is, fundamentally, capitalist in nature.


----------



## Ruby (Sep 16, 2009)

To be clear, in Britain there are still private hospitals and insurers, and no laws against them.  When the NHS was being created, the government never tried to control the whole medical industry.  They were not being strictly socialist.  They were just trying to give healthcare to the poor.


----------



## Dewgong (Sep 17, 2009)

opaltiger said:


> Insurance companies are free to set their own prices and to deny patients based on their own reasons (eg pre-existing conditions).


not totally on topic, but my mom was having troubles with our insurance company because apparently they thought chron's disease is a pre-existing condition. it's was lame. :/


----------



## nothing to see here (Sep 18, 2009)

Probably a little late for commenting on this bit, but...



> But you can change your sexuality. I did. Heterosexuality to asexuality. Now, I don't get "turned on" by anything anymore.


If this actually worked, I would've been asexual for several years now.

I was able to stop drinking soda (which some say is addictive, so I should've definitely been a serious addict after 20 years of drinking the stuff) and stop believing in the religion I was raised in for 17 years (which is pretty much embedded into your brain after that long.)  But no matter how much I tried to ignore the cute girls, I still like looking at them and talking to them, and I still have sexual thoughts involving them.  The only thing that's changed is that I've gotten a little bit better at ignoring them.

So yeah, sexuality isn't "just one of those things" that you can change if you put your mind to it.  If there's ever any significant change at all (after puberty, anyway), I'd imagine it would come along with some pretty nasty psychological damage.  You've probably just brainwashed yourself to the point where all of those thoughts are repressed way back in there somewhere, just festering in there and waiting to cause all kinds of problems when you're a few years older.


----------



## EvilCrazyMonkey (Sep 25, 2009)

Mudkip said:


> So what are you?


I never really think about it enough that it matters. I consider myself "liberal" because I like gay marriage. That isn't saying much, though. This... is South Carolina, after all. No, seriously. This video was aired all over TV (and the audio clip made it all over the radio, too.



opaltiger said:


> I know this was in June, but it's an interesting question, and I think some light should be cast.
> 
> Let's explain this in terms of the current healthcare debate.
> 
> ...


Okay, thank you very, very much. If Fox news (only thing ever on the TV in my house, news-wise) would actually explain something in this way instead of going like, "Well, Obama supports it, and we don't, so you shouldn't either." I hate how they seem to never get beyond the point that bleeding-heart liberals cannot sway their deep American roots of capitalism and that Obama is practically going to lead the pitchforks-and-torches rally on equality, justice and everything else America has come to stand for.

If anyone has ever had the feeling to just go up to Bill O'Reilly et al and tell them off I understand.

What's cool about this is that I actually was going to ask what the hell was going on with health care that caused a big fuss. Anyway, moving on.


----------



## Ven (Sep 25, 2009)

Well, I may not be American ( I'm Canadian) but Obama was _*not*_ born in America... and Doesn't that go against the Constitution where it says you must be born in America to be the President?


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Sep 25, 2009)

Xaldin said:


> Well, I may not be American ( I'm Canadian) but Obama was _*not*_ born in America... and Doesn't that go against the Constitution where it says you must be born in America to be the President?


He was born in Hawai'i. That's part of the USA.

IMO that clause in the constitution is stupid and shuld be changed anyway, but that's just me.


----------



## spaekle (Sep 25, 2009)

EvilCrazyMonkey said:


> Okay, thank you very, very much. If Fox news (only thing ever on the TV in my house, news-wise) would actually explain something in this way instead of going like, "Well, Obama supports it, and we don't, so you shouldn't either." I hate how they seem to never get beyond the point that bleeding-heart liberals cannot sway their deep American roots of capitalism and that Obama is practically going to lead the pitchforks-and-torches rally on equality, justice and everything else America has come to stand for.
> 
> If anyone has ever had the feeling to just go up to Bill O'Reilly et al and tell them off I understand.


My parents even listen to their radio show in the car sometimes. :| 

What I love is when people call in to debate them, make a bunch of points that they can't argue against, and the conversation deteriorates into the host trying as hard as possible not to let them talk before finally hanging up on them.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Sep 25, 2009)

... said:


> He was born in Hawai'i. That's part of the USA.
> 
> IMO that clause in the constitution is stupid and shuld be changed anyway, but that's just me.


Don't you see ..., he's black. When did you ever see a *BLACK* American? Heh


----------



## Tarvos (Sep 25, 2009)

> So... if I said that Jesus said 'the first rule of Christianity is that you don't talk about Christianity' then you couldn't disprove me, right?


+10000000

fight club references yeah


----------



## opaltiger (Sep 26, 2009)

Xaldin said:


> Well, I may not be American ( I'm Canadian) but Obama was _*not*_ born in America... and Doesn't that go against the Constitution where it says you must be born in America to be the President?


In case you're not kidding. Or even if you are; this clip is great.

eta: also I believe you need to be a "natural born citizen" of the US. Not sure what that means exactly. Maybe people born via C-section aren't eligible?


----------



## Dewgong (Sep 26, 2009)

opaltiger said:


> [Maybe people born via C-section aren't eligible


if that's what it means, that is unbelievably stupid.


----------



## Tarvos (Sep 26, 2009)

i think opal was being facetious


----------



## Adriane (Sep 28, 2009)

EvilCrazyMonkey said:


> I never really think about it enough that it matters. I consider myself "liberal" because I like gay marriage. That isn't saying much, though.* This... is South Carolina, after all.* No, seriously. This video was aired all over TV (and the audio clip made it all over the radio, too.


South Carolina *sucks*.



> Okay, thank you very, very much. If *Faux* news (only thing ever on the TV in my house, news-wise) would actually explain something in this way instead of going like, "Well, Obama supports it, and we don't, so you shouldn't either." I hate how they seem to never get beyond the point that bleeding-heart liberals cannot sway their deep American roots of capitalism and that Obama is practically going to lead the pitchforks-and-torches rally on equality, justice and everything else America has come to stand for.


Fixed.


----------

